A state-ordered analysis of engineering plans for the Tysons tunnel has blasted the multimillion-dollar independentproposal as incomplete, charging that the document lacks critical details supporting arguments on costs and schedule.
Fort Worth, Texas-based Carter & Burgess prepared the analysis at the request of Virginia officials after the release of the engineering study from Tysonstunnel.org. The group delivered the documents earlier this year in an effort to convince officials to resurrect the tunnel.
The about four miles of proposed underground track would be part of the 23-mile extension of Metrorail to Dulles. Gov. Tim Kaine, however, rejected the tunnel in September following a warning from federal transit officials that it would imperil $900 million in federal funding. Kaine has repeatedly said he won’t change course on the decision, instead opting for an aerial track through the commercial hub.
Tysonstunnel.org argues the tunnel could actually be cheaper and faster to build, an assertion that is hotly disputed. The group responded Thursday to the study and a similar subsequent letter from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, arguing the state never seriously considered their proposal.
“This kind of perfunctory, dismissive, inadequate and frankly sham review is unacceptable and particularly disturbing given that there is a real likelihood that the tunnel could save the Virginia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” Tysonstunnel head Scott Monett wrote.
State officials will likely use the Carter & Burgess analysis to undergird their argument against building the tunnel.
“The overall conclusion is that the proposed single-bore tunnel through Tysons Corner may be technically feasible; however, there are significant risks that the construction costs and schedule durations stated by Tysons Tunnel Inc. will be exceeded,” the report’s executive summary said.
The exchange is the latest in a rapidly escalating feud over the tunnel, which has energizedNorthern Virginians in a way few other issues have. The argument has intensified recently because state and airports officials, purportedly, are on the brink of approving a construction contract that would likely further cement their decision on the above-ground route.
